March 27, 2017, 06:32:56 PM

Author Topic: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else  (Read 7956 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20572
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #45 on: February 17, 2017, 11:26:18 AM »
Darn you all.  Especially you, Jack.  Now I have to go and re-check the AFMAs for all my lenses.

 :D
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #45 on: February 17, 2017, 11:26:18 AM »

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3622
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #46 on: February 17, 2017, 11:26:42 AM »
Thanks for posting the Canon links.  A little late for me but they have reaffirmed I'm now on track, i.e. test and adjust at typical shooting distance and ambient light and so forth.  Other comments and observations have been most helpful too.

Jack
6D   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II  1DX II

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

Mikehit

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1184
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2017, 11:46:33 AM »
Another "problem" is being a compulsive "perfectionist" ;)  I should know!  I just wish perfectionist and perfection would occasionally align. But ..... at least I try.

Jack

Try being an 'impatient perfectionist'. It played havoc with making model aircraft when I was a kid.

rfdesigner

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 749
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2017, 12:03:26 PM »

My 4th choice is the dot tune method, it relies on the Canon focus indicator to tell you focus has been achieved, but it has a lot of latency that can throw off the accuracy.  Even so, it will greatly improve a lens that is badly in need of adjustment

I'm interested as to why you put Dot tune in 4th.

I've run it (camera on tripod, good light etc etc.) and it made badly out of whack focus accurate with the random variation neatly spread around the desired focus point.

I fail to see how other methods could work better without taking a huge number of shots.

My own rule of thumb is for any sampled random set I want a bare minimum of 30 samples, you can still only be sure of your simga to +/-25% with that but at least it's an idea. (95% sure that is)
6D, 30D, 383L+, 28f1.8, 50STM, 100f2.0, 5.5"f8 scope, 12"f5 scope.
Personal Gripe:   "I could care less about.." = there are things less important too me, this may be my most important thing.
"I couldn't care less about.." = this is the bottom of my list.. it is so unimportant.

Alex_M

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 348
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2017, 07:52:35 PM »
Actually, am I perfectionist in filling up my car with manufacturer recommended type of petrol (gas)?
Or is a surgeon perfectionist in washing his hands before attending the operation?
Is he techie by doing this? Obviously no.
I know full well and I had that negative experience shooting with miss calibrated long lens wide open. It ruined the gig for me. It takes 5-10 minutes then get AFMA right anyway. Why would not do it properly?
Yes, I like that to be prepared and be on top of the issue
But no one ever called me a techie for being well organised person.
There is a distinct line between compulsive gear centric perfectionist and someone that can utilise his technical knowledge in achieving better artistic outcomes.
Some people are happy shooting with their canon L glass and never gave a second thought that AFMA was required. I have met many professional photos that never ever calibrated their Canon L glass even once.
Only when you cross into big whites territory or shooting wide open with F1.4 primes you start to realise that AFMA is a nessesity due to very thin DoF
I guess, netizens of this forum have somewhat higher technical standards due to the fact that they are involved in very technical genres of photography, Astro, macro, panorama, BIF, wildlife, sports and action.  Heck, even studio photography can be technically challenging starting up multiple sources of light , modifiers and ratios. Well, if one cares of course :)
I guess one can call me techie, my day job is in technology heavy sector but far from being a technical employee or engineer.
My experience though is that creativity in many cases can suffer if tools required to maintain that creative outcomes is out of tune by mile.
So, in the outset: get you gear in tune, be prepared it helps to capture that unique moment of your life

Another "problem" is being a compulsive "perfectionist" ;)  I should know!  I just wish perfectionist and perfection would occasionally align. But ..... at least I try.

Jack

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3622
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2017, 08:50:12 PM »
Actually, am I perfectionist in filling up my car with manufacturer recommended type of petrol (gas)?
Or is a surgeon perfectionist in washing his hands before attending the operation?
Is he techie by doing this? Obviously no.
I know full well and I had that negative experience shooting with miss calibrated long lens wide open. It ruined the gig for me. It takes 5-10 minutes then get AFMA right anyway. Why would not do it properly?
Yes, I like that to be prepared and be on top of the issue
But no one ever called me a techie for being well organised person.
There is a distinct line between compulsive gear centric perfectionist and someone that can utilise his technical knowledge in achieving better artistic outcomes.
Some people are happy shooting with their canon L glass and never gave a second thought that AFMA was required. I have met many professional photos that never ever calibrated their Canon L glass even once.
Only when you cross into big whites territory or shooting wide open with F1.4 primes you start to realise that AFMA is a nessesity due to very thin DoF
I guess, netizens of this forum have somewhat higher technical standards due to the fact that they are involved in very technical genres of photography, Astro, macro, panorama, BIF, wildlife, sports and action.  Heck, even studio photography can be technically challenging starting up multiple sources of light , modifiers and ratios. Well, if one cares of course :)
I guess one can call me techie, my day job is in technology heavy sector but far from being a technical employee or engineer.
My experience though is that creativity in many cases can suffer if tools required to maintain that creative outcomes is out of tune by mile.
So, in the outset: get you gear in tune, be prepared it helps to capture that unique moment of your life

Another "problem" is being a compulsive "perfectionist" ;)  I should know!  I just wish perfectionist and perfection would occasionally align. But ..... at least I try.

Jack

WOW, Alex I have no issue with your approach.  The problem perfectionist person is me that I was referring to. :)  I am not satisfied until it's the best it can be but I don't judge others harshly because I subscribe to the live/die by the sword principle and I have no interest in dying.  ;)  The techie comment, I believe, was not being directed at you in particular, just the general idea was being thrown out to the group because it sometimes is true.

The key is to just accept every person's contribution for what it's worth and not take things too personally.  Your points were well presented, have merit and were interesting.

Jack
6D   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II  1DX II

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

Alex_M

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 348
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2017, 11:54:48 PM »
Jack, I am so sorry!.. OMG!

My post was not a direct reply to your comment but only in support of the points you have rightfully raised. I reject "techie" labels some people tends to slap over forum members that understand technology side of the photography a bit better. This forum is a great source of knowledge for open minded photogs.

Actually, am I perfectionist in filling up my car with manufacturer recommended type of petrol (gas)?
Or is a surgeon perfectionist in washing his hands before attending the operation?
Is he techie by doing this? Obviously no.
I know full well and I had that negative experience shooting with miss calibrated long lens wide open. It ruined the gig for me. It takes 5-10 minutes then get AFMA right anyway. Why would not do it properly?
Yes, I like that to be prepared and be on top of the issue
But no one ever called me a techie for being well organised person.
There is a distinct line between compulsive gear centric perfectionist and someone that can utilise his technical knowledge in achieving better artistic outcomes.
Some people are happy shooting with their canon L glass and never gave a second thought that AFMA was required. I have met many professional photos that never ever calibrated their Canon L glass even once.
Only when you cross into big whites territory or shooting wide open with F1.4 primes you start to realise that AFMA is a nessesity due to very thin DoF
I guess, netizens of this forum have somewhat higher technical standards due to the fact that they are involved in very technical genres of photography, Astro, macro, panorama, BIF, wildlife, sports and action.  Heck, even studio photography can be technically challenging starting up multiple sources of light , modifiers and ratios. Well, if one cares of course :)
I guess one can call me techie, my day job is in technology heavy sector but far from being a technical employee or engineer.
My experience though is that creativity in many cases can suffer if tools required to maintain that creative outcomes is out of tune by mile.
So, in the outset: get you gear in tune, be prepared it helps to capture that unique moment of your life

Another "problem" is being a compulsive "perfectionist" ;)  I should know!  I just wish perfectionist and perfection would occasionally align. But ..... at least I try.

Jack

WOW, Alex I have no issue with your approach.  The problem perfectionist person is me that I was referring to. :)  I am not satisfied until it's the best it can be but I don't judge others harshly because I subscribe to the live/die by the sword principle and I have no interest in dying.  ;)  The techie comment, I believe, was not being directed at you in particular, just the general idea was being thrown out to the group because it sometimes is true.

The key is to just accept every person's contribution for what it's worth and not take things too personally.  Your points were well presented, have merit and were interesting.

Jack

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2017, 11:54:48 PM »

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3622
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #52 on: February 18, 2017, 12:46:59 AM »
Nothing to be sorry about! :)

Jack
6D   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II  1DX II

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3622
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2017, 12:40:47 PM »
Because of my ongoing issues with the 1DX2 AF and AFMA Canon has requested I send RAW files for them to analyze.  This is a little more detailed/specific than what they have on-line as a guide so I thought some CR folk might like to see it.

Jack


If you want to troubleshoot the AF issue, I will suggest to get a few shots with no MA, on one shot MODE with and without the extender.

Here is an example of a focus test that you can follow, if you want.

====================
BASIC SLR FOCUS TEST
====================
In order to isolate the issue that you are experiencing, we suggest performing the following focusing test and responding with the results. Due to the large number of factors that can affect focus, it is imperative that all of the settings below be adhered to in order to properly assess the situation.

1.  If you use filters with your lenses please remove them for this test.
2.  Use the ?Clear all camera settings? and ?Clear all Custom Functions? of the camera to reset the camera to its default factory settings.
3.  If your camera offers the AF microadjustment feature, please ensure that it is disabled for the purposes of this test.
4.  Set the Image Quality setting to "Large JPEG" (or preferably RAW if possible)
5.  Set the "Picture Style" to "Standard".
6.  Set the shooting mode to "aperture priority <Av>" and set the aperture to the maximum value possible (smallest f/stop) however please also ensure that it is not set any lower than f/2.8
7.  Set the "ISO" speed to "100".
8.  Set the "AF mode" to "One Shot".  For this test, do NOT use "AI Servo" or "AI Focus" modes.
9.  Set the "Drive Mode" to "Single Shot".  For this test, do NOT use "Continuous" shooting mode.
10.  Select only the centre auto-focus point.
11.  If you use a tripod, please disable the Image Stabilization of the lens by moving the "Stabilizer" switch on the lens to the "OFF" position.
12.  Place three objects of the same size on a table at different distances from the camera.  From left to right, place the left most object closest to the camera and the right most object furthest from the camera.  From front to back, space the objects out by about 2 to 3 inches.  For easier analysis, we recommend using objects that contain text or writing on them and that contain a fair amount of contrast (i.e. avoid using objects that are completely one colour).
13.  Compose or frame the image in the viewfinder so that the three objects occupy and fill as much of the frame as possible. Also, please ensure that the iamge is taken at eye level and not an an angle.
14.  Use the centre auto-focus point to achieve focus on the centre object and then, without re-framing, capture the image.  Please ensure that the centre AF point is aimed towards a part of the object that contains contrast (i.e. avoid having the AF point land on a part of the object that is completely one colour).
15.  Please ensure that there is more than adequate lighting in the room.   If possible this test should be performed outdoors in full daylight.
16.  Please ensure that the lens is "de-focused" or purposely thrown out of focus in between every test shot.  To do this, focus on an object that is located at a different distance to your intended subject and then re-perform the test.
17.  Optional: redo steps 1-16 using the "Live View Shooting" feature of your camera (if available on your model). This will help isolate the issue even further.

Note that, after downloading images to your computer from a digital camera, it is tempting to magnify or print out just a part of the image once downloaded to your computer. This can magnify small errors in AF that would otherwise not be apparent when being viewed at a more traditional print size. As a result, you may see slight errors in AF magnified many times over that would not normally be visible when the image is printed.  Even if small errors in AF are visible on the computer monitor, these errors may not be visible when the image is viewed as a full size print.

Please reply to this message with the image(s) captured during this test attached.  Please ensure that the images are sent using the file attachment feature of your particular email system.  Images are not to be embedded or pasted into the email.  In the case that the file size of the images is too large for email, you may also send your files via any file sharing web site of your choosing (i.e. www.wikisend.com, Dropbox etc.) and provide us with the web link.  In addition, please e-mail images that have not been edited (i.e. no adjustments, no cropping, no resizing) and have been saved in the camera's native JPG/JPEG file format or RAW file format (if available).

Upon receipt of the image(s) we will examine them and will then contact you with our findings and recommendations.
6D   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II  1DX II

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

AlanF

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2563
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #54 on: March 22, 2017, 02:28:21 PM »

Note that, after downloading images to your computer from a digital camera, it is tempting to magnify or print out just a part of the image once downloaded to your computer. This can magnify small errors in AF that would otherwise not be apparent when being viewed at a more traditional print size. As a result, you may see slight errors in AF magnified many times over that would not normally be visible when the image is printed.  Even if small errors in AF are visible on the computer monitor, these errors may not be visible when the image is viewed as a full size print.


But, magnifying part of the image is just what we have to do for our bird photography! They have a get-out clause that AF has to be good enough for only an uncropped print.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2017, 02:35:04 PM by AlanF »
5D IV, 5DS R, 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X, 400mm DO II, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM, EF 70-200/4 IS, EF 24-105, 15-85, 100-400 II, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3622
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #55 on: March 22, 2017, 04:38:05 PM »

Note that, after downloading images to your computer from a digital camera, it is tempting to magnify or print out just a part of the image once downloaded to your computer. This can magnify small errors in AF that would otherwise not be apparent when being viewed at a more traditional print size. As a result, you may see slight errors in AF magnified many times over that would not normally be visible when the image is printed.  Even if small errors in AF are visible on the computer monitor, these errors may not be visible when the image is viewed as a full size print.


But, magnifying part of the image is just what we have to do for our bird photography! They have a get-out clause that AF has to be good enough for only an uncropped print.

Yes Alan, that is indeed disturbing.  They also told me the numerous spots on my sensor that are only in the top left quadrant are most likely dust and not oil. That really made me laugh.  I suppose it's the way I hold the camera; all the dust rolls in that direction!

Oh, and Alan, you're not supposed to crop, you should frame it correctly in the first place.  Even my daughter knows that and told me emphatically. ;)

Jack
6D   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II  1DX II

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5852
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #56 on: March 22, 2017, 04:53:50 PM »

Note that, after downloading images to your computer from a digital camera, it is tempting to magnify or print out just a part of the image once downloaded to your computer. This can magnify small errors in AF that would otherwise not be apparent when being viewed at a more traditional print size. As a result, you may see slight errors in AF magnified many times over that would not normally be visible when the image is printed.  Even if small errors in AF are visible on the computer monitor, these errors may not be visible when the image is viewed as a full size print.


But, magnifying part of the image is just what we have to do for our bird photography! They have a get-out clause that AF has to be good enough for only an uncropped print.

I don't think it is a "get out clause" it is a specification.

Normal AF points are spec'ed at 1x depth of focus (not depth of field), high precision AF points are 1/3 x depth of focus. Obviously any enlargement, or crop, can potentially take a within spec AF image outside 'acceptable focus'.

The only way you can hope to get repeatable in focus images if you crop hard are if you limit AF point use to high precision points only.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3622
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #57 on: March 22, 2017, 05:00:19 PM »
Hey Scott, that did occur to me and I've been staying with the double cross when possible and almost always cross but of course that depends on lens.  It occurred to me that the upper portrait orientation focus point is very commonly used and I wondered why they haven't made it cross type.

Further to this thought, would you guess that some of my AF inconsistency and generally poor performance might relate to F8 focusing not being quite up to snuff?  I find the specs on AF type based on max aperture to be a little confusing and I'm not sure I'm interpreting the manual correctly.  They pack a lot of information into a single diagram.

Jack
« Last Edit: March 22, 2017, 05:15:54 PM by Jack Douglas »
6D   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II  1DX II

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #57 on: March 22, 2017, 05:00:19 PM »

AlanF

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2563
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #58 on: March 22, 2017, 05:56:47 PM »
Privatebydesign, It's a standard statement that gets trotted out that Canon's specification are for 1 depth of focus (at the sensor) not for 1 depth of field (of the object), and that the two are different. Here is an article by someone who has done the maths and using Canon's numbers shows that depth of focus does equal depth of field for the one-depth-of-focus definition http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/AF_accuracy.pdf
 
Quote:

"This can be summarized:
The  range  over  which  the  actual  focus  distance  can  occur  within  the  “one  depth  of  focus”  specification  of  autofocus  accuracy  is  exactly  the  same  as  the  range  of  distance  that  constitutes  the  depth  of  field  for  focus  at  the  distance of our test object.
"


Jack, As I have mentioned before, my 5DIV at 800mm and f/8 has excellent reproducibility of AF and is giving BIF consistently in focus.

5D IV, 5DS R, 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X, 400mm DO II, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM, EF 70-200/4 IS, EF 24-105, 15-85, 100-400 II, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3622
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #59 on: March 22, 2017, 06:58:46 PM »
Alan, Now I wait for sunshine and not snowing and then I'll send the results in to Canon.  However, I've pretty much made up my mind that the camera body will get sent in soon.  It seems strange to me that I should be having such an experience after all the fun times with 6D and 300 X2, in spite of very slow AF, it it was generally accurate.  Now it's 400 X2, very fast AF but inaccurate.

Jack
6D   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II  1DX II

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else
« Reply #59 on: March 22, 2017, 06:58:46 PM »